Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Never mind the scientific quality, feel the ethics?: an analysis of decision letters by Research Ethics Committees and a reflection

By Emma L. Angell, Alan Bryman, Richard E. Ashcroft and Mary Dixon-Woods


Objectives: The performance of NHS research ethics committees (RECs) is of growing interest. It has been proposed that they confine themselves to ‘‘ethical’’ issues only and not concern themselves with the quality of the science. This study aimed to identify current practices of RECs in relation to scientific issues in research ethics applications.\ud Methods: Letters written by UK RECs expressing provisional or unfavourable opinions in response to submitted research applications were sampled from the research ethics database held by the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees. Ethnographic content analysis (ECA) was used to develop a coding framework. QSR N6 software was used to facilitate coding.\ud Results: ‘‘Scientific issues’’ were raised in 104 (74%) of the 141 letters in our sample. The present data suggest that RECs frequently considered scientific issues and that judgments of these often informed their decisions about approval of applications. Current processes of peer review seemed insufficient to reassure RECs about the scientific quality of applications they were asked to review.\ud Conclusions: This study provides evidence that scientific issues are frequently raised in letters to researchers and are often considered a quality problem by RECs. In the discussion, the authors reflect on how far issues of science can and should be distinguished from those of ethics and the policy implications

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
Year: 2008
DOI identifier: 10.1136/qshc.2007.022756
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. A tale of two studies: research governance issues arising from two ethnographic investigations into the organisation of health and social care. doi
  2. (2006). An exercise in fatuity: research governance and the emasculation of HSR. doi
  3. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev doi
  4. (2001). Central Office for Research Ethics Committees, doi
  5. (2007). Contesting the science/ethics distinction in the review of clinical research. J Med Ethics. doi
  6. (2004). Ethics Creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qual Sociol doi
  7. (1978). Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. doi
  8. Ethnographic content analysis. In: Lewis doi
  9. Is “inconsistency” in Research Ethics Committee decision-making really a problem? An empirical investigation and reflection. Clin Ethics doi
  10. (1996). Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks, doi
  11. (2004). Research Ethics Committees: Differences and moral judgement. Bioethics doi
  12. (2000). Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee. BMJ doi
  13. (2006). Testing treatments: better research for better healthcare. London: British Library, doi
  14. (2006). The Academy of Medical Sciences. Personal data for public good: using health information in medical research. London: Academy of Medical Sciences,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.